>> I loathed MASM 1.0-
>> -it was all too possible to generate the wrong code; something that
>> should never happen with an assembler.
> How on earth is that possible? I can imagine an
assembler generating
> non-optimal code, but non-FUNCTIONAL code?
Never under-estimate what MICROS~1 is capable of doing!
V5.0 was the first one where the papers that came with
it could even be
CALLED documentation.
Just curious - I don't know if I ever saw a Microsoft branded
version of MASM 1.0 - I have the complete IBM "Macro Assembler
by Microsoft" package, which is packaged in a pink PC format
binder with about an inch thickness of paper - I've saw a lot
of products in that era with much worse documentation.
The manual states that it's "First Edition (December 1981)
and the MASM executable spits out:
-----------------------------------------
The IBM Personal Computer MACRO Assembler
Version 1.00 (C)Copyright IBM Corp 1981
-----------------------------------------
Is this essentially the same assembler that is being discussed?
There are two assemblers in the package, ASM which is without
macros and requires 64k and MASM which does support macros and
requires 96k - someone scoffed at this, but it seems reasonable
to provide a limited version for a very small memory footprint
system (many vendors did this in the days of limited memory).
It does state that if you have 96k you can run either assembler,
so I don't think it has anything to do with needing to architect
if differently for different amounts of memory.
We used this package a lot in some early PC product development,
and I do recall that it was slow and had a number of quirks, but
we did produce a lot of working code with it. I also recall that
when we upgraded to MASM 4 is was *much* better (in fact I still
have it installed and use it from time to time).
--
dave09 (at) Dave Dunfield
dunfield (dot) Firmware development services & tools:
www.dunfield.com
com Collector of vintage computing equipment:
http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/index.html